The regular meeting of the Utah Transportation Commission, held at 4501 South 2700 West, Salt Lake City, Utah, was called to order at 1:40 p.m. by Commissioner James G. Larkin. He explained that Chairman Brown would be arriving late. He then introduced new Commission member, Stephen M. Bodily, who replaced Todd G. Weston.

Approval of MinutesCommissioner Clyde moved to approve the minutes of the March 7, 1997 and March 26, 1997 meeting held in St. George and Salt Lake City respectively. It was seconded by Commissioner Eastman and passed unanimously.

Public CommentsSouth Jordan City Council member, Kent Money, spoke to the Commission. He introduced South Jordan Mayor Theron B. Hutchins, South Jordan City Administrator, Dave Millheim, and Economic Development Director Keith Snarr. Mr. Money gave a presentation regarding some items they feel are important to the 10600 South interchange. He said they would like to offer a partnership with the City of South Jordan. Mr. Money passed out a document to the Commission regarding their proposal for widening 10600 South and reviewed the information contained in the document. He stated that South Jordan has experienced rapid growth in recent years, and the city has doubled itís population since 1990. And, traffic has grown as the population has grown. He said that 10600 South is South Jordan Cityís only access to the I-15 freeway. Mr. Money then shared statistics on traffic volumes on 10600 South, and said it is evident that 10600 South needs to be widened.

Mr. Money explained that the proposed 10600 South road widening project would increase the current two-lane road to a four-lane facility. The estimated length of the project from I-15 to Redwood Road is 2.02 miles. He said South Jordan City has acquired, or is able to acquire, up to 70% of the right of way for the road widening. South Jordan City is also willing to provide project engineering and other benefits to expedite this project. Mr. Money explained their reasons for widening the 10600 South road. He continued and spoke about their proposals, including South Jordanís 10600 South corridor right of way preservation, providing road engineering and design, and bridge engineering and design. He also spoke about the EIS and several other items. He concluded by saying that this proposal is contingent upon timely UDOT funding for construction of the 10600 South road widening improvements, and upon completion of engineering design and right of way acquisition by South Jordan City as previously mentioned.

There were questions asked and additional discussion to clarify several points of South Jordan Cityís proposal, including estimated cost of the project, preservation of right of way, environmental considerations, and relocation of homes and businesses.

Commissioner Brown stated that the biggest difficulty is the issue of money, and that the road at 12300 South has similar pressures and concerns. He also discussed the financial difficulty in relation to the awarding of the I-15 reconstruction contract, and the legislature not meeting until next January to deal with the overage of that contract. Chairman Brown asked Director Warne if he had any suggestions of what could be done in the interim. Director Warne suggested that it is always wise for a community to obtain rights of way on corridors like 10600 South, and he suggested that the City of South Jordan proceed further.

Dave Millheim commented that they are not expecting an answer today, and they are very empathetic with the cash-flow challenges, and priority challenges that UDOT has. They are also in the same boat on a smaller level. They wanted to get the proposal in front of the Commission today, but the concern that some of their City Council members have is that while they are going to be investing at least $400,000 to start the engineering, that $400,000 could be used in other places. Mr. Millheim said this is such a priority and such an importance, they are willing to put the $400,000 into this project. But, they would also like to know that they are doing it with the hope they are coming to a partnership. He said they may be willing to bond for the project if they know they can get it reimbursed through a proper agreement with UDOT, from those funds as they become available. What South Jordan City is going to need at some point, is an answer from UDOT if this has merit. Chairman Brown said that there is no question, at least on his part, and the Commission, that they view this as a priority. Itís just how to make it all happen. Commissioner Eastman commented that his position is that anytime a community is willing to come forward and offer a partnership agreement, where itís feasible, UDOT ought to take advantage of that.

Director Warne suggested that Region 2 and Linda Toyís staff work with South Jordan. He said this is a different scenario than anything UDOT has looked at in awhile. He also said there needs to be a better estimate of the dollar amounts being talking about, so that decisions made down the road are appropriate.

Planning and ProgrammingState Park Access Roads ProgrammingAddition of Two Projects to FY 97 STIPLinda Toy explained the item to the Commission. She said the Joint Highway Committee prioritized which projects they want as part of their program. They identified two projects, one in the Kodachrome Basin, the other in Goblin Valley. She said they would like to get started on those projects now, rather than wait for the beginning of the next fiscal year. They would begin work on those projects with their own funding, not with any federal funds. Ms. Toy said the Commission needs to approve a motion to amend the current STIP to include those two projects on the STIP, so that the JHC and the local agencies can begin with their own money to work on these projects.

There was discussion on procedures, and how the projects get into the STIP process. Chairman Brown said he assumed that the Commission would create a category on the STIP that says State Park Access Roads. He also clarified that this is a recommendation coming from the Joint Highway Committee to the Commission for final action on the two projects. Chairman Brown also asked Mike Ritchie, FHWA, if this would create any problems. Mr. Ritchie responded that it doesnít throw up any flags. He said it was his understanding that itís the Commissionís role to determine the priority of the projects. John Quick said that the roads are all local roads, and those local roads also qualify for federal money.

Commissioner Larkin moved to add the new State Park Access Roads category on the STIP, and add the two projects approved by the Joint Highway Committee into the new category. It was seconded by Commissioner Clyde, and passed unanimously.

Planning and ProgrammingReprogramming of STIP Funding for Echo Port of EntryLinda Toy said that this item is only to advise the Commission of action taken. She said that currently, with the port of entry at Echo, there is $3 million currently programmed in FY 97 and $3 million programmed in FY 98. In FY 97 they will be putting in drainage and grading. The construction, including concrete surfacing, wouldnít begin until FY 98. But the engineers felt that if that if they could do the concrete surfacing in FY 97, they could prevent problems with erosion and spring runoff next year. In addition, it would provide a good staging area for the contractor. Ms. Toy said the moving of $500,000 from FY 98 to FY 97 has already been approved so the concrete surfacing could be done in FY 97. Commissioner Brown asked if that had already been done, or if it needed action. Ms. Toy responded that it has been done and the transfer of the money has been approved. Again, this was just to advise the Commission.

Planning and ProgrammingSTIP Amendment to Shift Funds from I-70 Port of Entry ProjectDave Miles explained the issue to the Commission. He said that $450,000 would be shifted to three other areas, namely, the upgrading of the Wendover and Perry ports with Mainline WIM/AVI, and the equipping of a mobile Electronic Surveillance Unit which can serve as a portable port of entry on any evasion route, not just I-70. Chairman Brown asked Mr. Miles if he was sure this is really what they want to do, and that he wonít be back saying they changed their minds. Mr. Miles responded that they donít think they will be back for a long time. Director Warne said the advancements in technology are such that he suspects that Echo will be the last major port of entry project that UDOT will have.

Commissioner Eastman made the motion to shift funding of the remaining $450,000 as explained. It was seconded by Commissioner Larkin and passed unanimously.

Planning and ProgrammingAeronautical Project - Hinckley Airport Improvement ProjectBob Barrett explained that this is a state maintenance project for Ogden Hinckley Airport. The total cost of the project is $241,000 of which $215,000 will be state funds, the other $26,000 will be local funds. The work being done is a seal and rejuvenation of runway 3/21, seal and rejuvenate the north apron, the south apron, and the apron in front of the Ogden Jet Center. It also includes painting runway 3/21, and to supply weed killer.

Commissioner Clyde move to approve the project as explained. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Larkin, and it passed unanimously.

ResolutionsDescriptive Change on SR 131 in West BountifulJohn Quick gave a brief explanation of the Resolution. He said it is a change in the state highway system, and is on SR 131 in West Bountiful. This is a request from West Bountiful to Region 2. It extends the state route across the interstate, and will cross the railroad tracks. Itís about a 1000 foot addition to the state highway. Director Warne added that this has been a subject of great discussion with West Bountiful. He said that where boundaries were drawn on maps reflecting maintenance and ownership responsibilities, in retrospect, some of those places were not drawn as would reflect what needs to be done today. The region continues to take care of the bridge and perform maintenance to 800 West. UDOT has been maintaining to that point, but it has been a subject of some dispute over jurisdiction. This resolution basically cleans up what probably should have been done years ago.

Chairman Brown related this to the Henefer Bridge and made brief comments on that situation. He was concerned about the Department not being consistent. Director Warne responded and said that this situation is different in that the county is involved in Henefer, itís a county road connecting onto the bridge. In West Bountiful, it is a state route to the edge of the bridge and goes into West Bountiful. There was continued discussion regarding the Henefer Bridge situation in comparison to the West Bountiful situation, and an issue of equity. There was also discussion on bridges in general.

Commissioner Eastman made a motion to accept the resolution as presented. It was seconded by Commissioner Clyde and passed unanimously.

ResolutionsAbandonment of Bypass - SR 89 in Piute CountyJohn Quick explained that this resolution is dealing with the Circleville to Junction project. He explained the color coding on a map that was in the Commission binders. He said the red line on the map is the new alignment. There are sections that are being abandoned, and there are sections that are being transferred to local jurisdiction. The green section is being transferred to Junction, the dark blue section is being transferred to Piute County, and the light blue section is where wetland mitigation is being retained. This resolution claims alignment and ownership of transferred roads and sections back to the proper authority.

Commissioner Clyde moved to approve the resolution as presented. It was seconded by Commissioner Larkin, and it passed unanimously.

WFRC Update on University to Airport MIS/Draft EISDoug Hattery explained that WFRC has been working on a major investment study, environmental study for the corridor between the University of Utah and the airport, mainly looking at transit improvement. Their steering committee has come up with a recommendation. Mr. Hattery turned the time over to Ralph Jackson, WFRCís consultant, to present their findings to the Commission.

Mr. Jackson displayed several charts. He said they have looked at three options. One is a no build, the second one is to provide transportation to the corridor with a combination of an expansive bus system and high occupancy vehicle lanes, the third is with a light rail alternative.

Mr. Jackson reminded the Commission of the location of the corridor for the different options. He also mentioned that based on the airportís new master plan, being incorporated in the design of the transportation center parking structure is a direct penetration that would bring light rail, or possibly bus, within 200 or 300 feet of the revised single terminal rather than the several terminals that they now have.

Mr. Jackson referred to North Temple and 400 South, and dealing with SR 186 which is under UDOTís jurisdiction. He pointed out Alternative B, which is the Bus/High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) alternative, and proceeded with what they would recommend there. Mr. Jackson then discussed the fiscal results of their analysis. He explained that in terms of capital costs, with the Bus/HOV alternative (Alternative B), they are looking at just under $40 million. With the light rail alternative (Alternative C), they are looking at $355 million. He said that comes out to about $3 million per year for the Bus/HOV alternative, and $27 million per year for the light rail alternative. For operating and maintenance costs, looking at the corridor itself, Mr. Jackson said it would cost about $2 million per year to expand the bus service. To put in light rail to perform that service, the cost would be about $6.5 million per year. Mr. Jackson also pointed out the comparative costs of operating the entire regional system.

Mr. Jackson said that currently $50 million is being spent per year. By adding the north/south line, which is part of the No Build alternative, it raises the amount to $57 million. He said the Bus/HOV adds slightly to that. With Alternative C, it goes up to $64 million per year.

The next subject discussed was ridership and revenue. Mr. Jackson explained a couple of situations they have looked at. He said with just the normal transit operation in the corridor, the projections made by WFRC was about 35 million passengers per year for Alternative A, and when adding the east/west corridor, it raises slightly to 36.8 million. With Alternative C, light rail, it goes up to 36.9 million. Mr. Jackson then went into detail and explained running time differences between the bus and light rail, comparisons of revenue projections, and ridership numbers.

The focus of discussion returned to 400 South, and whether the new off ramp from the I-15 reconstruction was going to cause any problems. There was also additional discussion on jurisdictional issues, and 400 South being a state route. Director Warne said he understood that the city will take jurisdiction of 400 South. Mr. Jackson said that subject comes up frequently, both in the case of 400 South and North Temple. He said that was one of the questions they had for the Commission today -- what their feelings were on that. Commissioner Clyde said it has to go to the city.

Mr. Jackson said they have taken the approach to being the analyst, doing the work, and coming up with the answers. The jurisdictional issue is one that the City and UDOT are going to have to work out eventually. He also stated that they basically have completed what they have been doing for this phase of the work. There was also talk about the next step, if anything should be done, and the time frame. Commissioner Lewis expressed his concern of making a wrong decision and the negative impact it would have. Commissioner Eastman also expressed his concerns about the negative impact an incorrect analysis or decision would have.

Doug Hattery was next to address the Commission. He spoke about a commuter rail feasibility study between Provo and Ogden, and possibly between Payson and Brigham City. He said that Mr. Jackson's firm is also the consultant for that. It is in the inventory stage right now. Mountainland Association of Governments has been working with WFRC, UTA and UDOT, and one of the things they have been looking at is if there is something that could be done in the next six months to a year between Provo and Salt Lake, in conjunction with the I-15 construction. Mr. Hattery said that the problem is funding.

The discussion then focused on concepts, funding, vehicle acquisition, operation of the system, etc. Mr. Hattery said that they have met with virtually all of the communities between Brigham City and Payson, and they are all supportive of helping find park and ride sights and stations. Mr. Hattery also said that there has been some very productive discussions with the railroad. There was continued and lengthy discussion regarding funding.

Will Jefferies concluded by saying that if anyone from the Commission would like to ride the train from Salt Lake to Ogden, or Salt Lake to Provo, it could be arranged. He said it would be worthwhile.

Grassy Mountain Visitor's CenterDirector Warne told the Commission that they are not necessarily asking for action today, but felt like it would be appropriate to bring them up to date on some things that are going on with visitor's centers around the state. He said that correspondence was recently received from the Department of Community and Economic Developmentís Division of Travel Development, regarding their preferences as it relates to the Grassy Mountain Welcome Center. Director Warne then turned the time over to Dean Reeder, director of the Division of Travel Development.

Mr. Reeder commented on the proposal for a welcome center on Interstate 80 eastbound. He said their first preference is to locate a welcome center in Nevada, as that would be the place to get people before they get to Wendover. But, with that not being practical, he said their recommendation is at the milepost 4 location, although milepost 10 would be more preferred because of the viewscapes. He also said that Grassy Mountain was originally their first preference, but recent information and concerns have changed that preference. Mr. Reeder continued and talked about their partnership with UDOT, and their budget.

Chairman Brown expressed his concerns regarding funding, and the lack of understanding that the legislature seems to have when it comes to construction of welcome centers. He said that it may be time to ask legislators if they want to build welcome centers at the expense of intersections, stoplights, etc. And, if not, then there needs to be another source developed or provided for the welcome center component of the rest area. Chairman Brown also said he perceived that itís time to say to the legislature that UDOT is not continuing on with Grassy Mountain, and is not going to put up the money to upgrade it from a visitorís center to a welcome center, unless the legislature gives further direction, and a decision is made on how to move forward on this project. Mr. Reeder responded and discussed the possibilities of other options and proceeded to explain them.

Commissioner Griffith asked what year Grassy Mountain is in. Andrew Gemperline answered that it is on the 1998 STIP, and that theyíve gotten the word to go with a medium sized rest area. There was discussion regarding problems with the site and hazardous waste.

At the request of Director Warne, Mr. Reeder explained the situation at the Jensen Welcome Center. Mr. Reeder talked about the costs of operating and maintaining the Jensen center, and also other centers around the state. Concerns were expressed about building the Grassy Mountain Center if existing centers werenít being maintained or refurbished as needed.

Commissioner Griffith suggested putting a group together to examine the whole funding idea. She suggested meeting with the Travel Council, UDOT, Regional Travel Councils, etc., to at least get some dialogue started. Chairman Brown asked Commissioner Griffith to represent the interest of the Chairman and the Commission, and also asked Commissioner Bodily to be a part of the committee. Chairman Brown commented that this is an important issue that needs to be brought to a better resolution.

Commissioner Lewis thanked Mr. Reeder for coming and for being forthright with the Commission about this issue. He said that something needs to be done and policies need to be set, because there is some expectation from FHWA about how to proceed and deal with this issue. There are also expectations from the public and the legislature. He also reiterated that it is crazy to build additional welcome centers if existing rest areas are not being kept up.

Chairman Brown asked that this be put on hold, and asked the Department to bring back a recommendation to the Commission.

Location and Outline of UDOTís Annual Open House MeetingsLinda Toy said this item is to discuss with the Commission, the proposed list of locations of where open houses will be held this fall. She then turned the time over to Jan Yeckes to explain how they came up with the list of proposed locations. Ms. Yeckes gave an updated list to the Commission reflecting the new Commissioner, and also showing the list of where open houses were held last year. She said this recommendation was based on several things. One was an issue of fairness in trying to spread the meetings around a bit so the same people donít have to drive long distances year after year to attend the meetings. The second factor was location, and finding one that is both accessible for people that are willing to drive a distance to attend, and also finding a place large enough that has facilities available for a public meeting. The third factor was arranging meetings so that each one covered only one region. She said that last year, some of the meetings covered more than one region and a lot of staff people ended up at the meetings.

Ms. Yeckes asked that the Commission approve the location of the meetings so that they could start to set dates and get facilities lined up. Commissioner Clyde and Commissioner Griffith said they were OK with their meetings. Commissioner Larkin asked if they were going to hold the meeting again in Richfield, making it two years in a row. Ms. Yeckes said that Richfield is a good central location, Commissioner Larkin agreed.

Chairman Brown said that Summit County is really in Commissioner Clydeís area. Commissioner Eastman commented that there really isnít any such thing as North Davis or South Davis, and thatís a huge issue in Davis County. He said if thereís going to be something in Davis County, it ought to be just Davis County. Ms. Yeckes explained what was done last year. Commissioner Lewis said he wondered why they donít consider making it a separate meeting, letting Davis County have their own meeting. Commissioner Eastman said he prefers not to send South Davis to Salt Lake, he would rather go north. He said Layton would be the best place since it is the most central location. It was decided to add a separate meeting for Davis County, and take Davis County out of Salt Lake.

There was also discussion about Summit County, and whether to have them meet in Orem rather than Salt Lake. Chairman Brown said that Wasatch and Summit line up a lot better. The problem is that not that many people show up. He also said that Summit would be more comfortable going to Orem than Salt Lake. Commissioner Brown suggested holding the meeting in Heber, and have Wasatch and Summit attend. Commissioner Clyde recommended that Ms. Yeckes ask Summit County officials what they would like to do.

Ms. Yeckes said the meeting format would be the similar to last year. It wold be an open house format as opposed to a formalized sit down meeting.

May as Bike MonthJan Yeckes explained that on April 16, 1997, Governor Leavitt signed a proclamation for May as Bike Month in Utah, and also designated a week for Bike Week. She handed out a copy of the document and proclamation signed by Governor Leavitt of the Bike Month and Bike Week. She proceeded to explain UDOTís involvement. She said UDOT has sent articles to local community newspapers that focus on a couple of subjects UDOT receives consistent complaints on. One is driver awareness, helping drivers become more aware that bicyclists are entitled to use public roads and have the same rights and responsibilities as cars. The other is to educate bicyclists, especially the more casual bicyclists or parents of child bicyclists, as to what the riding laws are and to promote safety such as helmet usage. She said bicycle shops have also been contacted and asked to carry some of the safety materials such as brochures that summarize the riding laws, etc. She also remarked that they have already received positive feedback as a result of this.

Informational ItemsDates for upcoming Commission meetings were discussed. It was noted that Tooele and Emery Counties have both requested that the Transportation Commission attend a tour and hold Commission meeting in their areas. Because of several conflicts, it was decided that the May Commission meeting would be held in Salt Lake City on Friday, May 23, 1997.

The June meeting and tour was set for Thursday, June 12, 1997 in Tooele County. Commissioner Griffith said she may not be able to attend then. There will not be a Commission meeting held in July. The August meeting and tour will be held in Emery County on August 14 & 15, 1997. The dates for the rest of the year were also scheduled as follows:

September 5, 1997

October 3, 1997

November 7, 1997

December 5, 1997

Six State and Navajo Nation Commission MeetingThe Six State and Navajo Nation Commission Meeting is set for June 17, 1997 in Casper, Wyoming. Commissioner Lewis and Commissioner Larkin will attend the meeting.

WASHTO ConferenceThe WASHTO Conference is set for July 27-31, 1997 in Sun Valley, Idaho. It was decided that Chairman Brown, Commissioner Bodily, and Commissioner Clyde will be attending.